Background: Workers stand on scaffolding near the signage for the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 2026 (Photo by Olivier Douliery/Abaca/Sipa USA – Sipa via AP Images). Inset: President Donald Trump leaves a St. Patrick's Day event in the East Room of the White House on March 17, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts must pay a jazz musician over $252,000 after a failed lawsuit filed by the Trump administration ended in the musician's favor, a judge ruled this week.
In a six-page order, Superior Court of the District of Columbia Associate Judge Tanya M. Jones Bosier ruled in favor of Charles "Chuck" Redd after the jazz drummer and vibraphonist called off a scheduled performance in the wake of the since-shelved controversy in which President Donald Trump tried to foist his own name on the iconic Washington, D.C., landmark and national cultural center.
Redd canceled his annual Christmas Eve performance at the Kennedy Center's "Jazz Jam" in December 2025 — prompting the Trump administration-appointed board to vow to pursue litigation in reprisal.
"When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert," Redd told the Associated Press at the time.
A breach-of-contract lawsuit followed, claiming $1 million in damages.
As it turned out, Redd had signed no such contract, the court found.
"Mr. Redd did not sign the contract," Jones Bosier said during a bench ruling in June, the Washingtonian reported at the time.
The court tossed the litigation for lacking that often necessary contract law component. The court also found the Trump administration's lawsuit was actually a strategic lawsuit against public participation, in violation of the district's anti-SLAPP law.
In essence, anti-SLAPP laws are statutes that aim to preserve First Amendment speech and expression rights against lawsuits that would abuse the legal system to otherwise limit, or, in this case, compel, speech.
At the time the lawsuit was dismissed, the court directed the defendant to calculate his legal fees. Now, those numbers are in.
Notably, Redd claimed "no less than" $258,325.72 in "reasonable costs and attorneys' fees" using a well-accepted accounting method.
"Counsels for Redd utilized the Fitzpatrick Matrix, which is an hourly legal fee breakdown by the Department of Justice in complex federal litigation in the District of Columbia," the court observed. "A review of the Fitzpatrick Matrix shows the hourly rates above are from 2025 and are based on years of experience practicing law after law school."
But the court reduced the award slightly to "exclude computerized legal research costs" and "reduce the hourly rate" for one member of Redd's legal team, the order notes.
The court did not take much issue with the accounting — but said it used a separate method because the one used by Redd's team is more often used "in federal litigation."
"The Court reviewed the Motion, corresponding exhibits, and applicable rates as to each individual that Redd requests compensation for," the order goes on. "The Court finds the requested amounts are reasonable."
To that end, the judge ordered the musician's attorneys to receive precisely $5,846.02 less than they claimed in their fee request. The court reached this figure by lopping off some $2,604.42 in expenses and by taking the aforementioned attorney's rate down by $53 per hour.
"Based on the above-listed calculations, the Court finds that Redd is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of $252,479.70," Jones Bosier determined, in the end.
The judge also took note of a few problems with the Trump administration's efforts to push back against the fee award.
"The Court notes that the Center's Opposition was filed beyond the time required by the rules and this Court's July 24, 2026, order," the order goes on. "Additionally, the Opposition exceeds the Court's fifteen (15) page limit without prior leave of court."
Still, the judge said, she considered the arguments — and would have ruled for Redd in the same way regardless.
"Notwithstanding the procedural defects and untimeliness, the Court reviewed the Opposition to ensure a fulsome review and reaches the same conclusion discussed above," the order concludes.